|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2016 04:04 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 03:59 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 03:55 Plansix wrote:
It should also be pointed out that Clinton has managed to pull in 60% of the Democrats, while Trump around 35% of Republicans. And a lot of those voters that didn’t vote for him said he was not their second choice. Many said they did not know. Trump has a lot of ground to cover to become marketable for the rest of Republicans, let alone independents. That's because there's 2 blue candidates and 5 red. Yes, I am aware. Now, for the second part where the majority of voters not voting for Trump said he was not their second choice. The stats were linked in this thread. 2nd choice doesn't matter post primary, unless the other GOP candidates run as independent afterwords. It's a matter of "how jaded are you about Trump that you're willing to vote Hillary?" http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-egyptian-who-threatened-to-kill-trump-on-facebook-to-be-deported/Show nested quote +Emad El-Din Ali Mohamed Nasr El Sayed, a 23-year-old student, reportedly had his U.S. visa revoked as a result of the threats.
“I am willing to kill Donald Trump and serve a life sentence,” El Sayed wrote on Facebook, according to interviews with his lawyer conducted by Egyptian Streets. “[T]he whole world would thank me for doing that.”
El Sayed was arrested in mid-February but authorities dropped the charges after a decision was made to revoke his visa. A California immigration court determined on Tuesday that he is now in the United States illegally and must be deported back to Egypt. Not sure to laugh, or be sad.
he's definitely mad now
|
On March 03 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:04 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 03:59 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 03:55 Plansix wrote:
It should also be pointed out that Clinton has managed to pull in 60% of the Democrats, while Trump around 35% of Republicans. And a lot of those voters that didn’t vote for him said he was not their second choice. Many said they did not know. Trump has a lot of ground to cover to become marketable for the rest of Republicans, let alone independents. That's because there's 2 blue candidates and 5 red. Yes, I am aware. Now, for the second part where the majority of voters not voting for Trump said he was not their second choice. The stats were linked in this thread. 2nd choice doesn't matter post primary, unless the other GOP candidates run as independent afterwords. It's a matter of "how jaded are you about Trump that you're willing to vote Hillary?" Or they could not vote at all. That is the real issue for Trump going forward.
Considering how energized the GOP is, and their overall base is in the primary, pretty sure they'll come out an vote.
|
On March 03 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:04 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 03:59 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 03:55 Plansix wrote:
It should also be pointed out that Clinton has managed to pull in 60% of the Democrats, while Trump around 35% of Republicans. And a lot of those voters that didn’t vote for him said he was not their second choice. Many said they did not know. Trump has a lot of ground to cover to become marketable for the rest of Republicans, let alone independents. That's because there's 2 blue candidates and 5 red. Yes, I am aware. Now, for the second part where the majority of voters not voting for Trump said he was not their second choice. The stats were linked in this thread. 2nd choice doesn't matter post primary, unless the other GOP candidates run as independent afterwords. It's a matter of "how jaded are you about Trump that you're willing to vote Hillary?" Or they could not vote at all. That is the real issue for Trump going forward.
I would say that its a bigger issue for the Hillary then for Trump.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i mean trump not clearly denouncing the kkk is all kinds of weird. he needs to go hard for the bigots in the primaries sure, but how much of that support is denouncing the kkk really going to cost. he's full blast on the implicit stuff already.
therefore the possibility that he's a hillary mole is still open
|
On March 03 2016 04:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 04:04 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 03:59 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 03:55 Plansix wrote:
It should also be pointed out that Clinton has managed to pull in 60% of the Democrats, while Trump around 35% of Republicans. And a lot of those voters that didn’t vote for him said he was not their second choice. Many said they did not know. Trump has a lot of ground to cover to become marketable for the rest of Republicans, let alone independents. That's because there's 2 blue candidates and 5 red. Yes, I am aware. Now, for the second part where the majority of voters not voting for Trump said he was not their second choice. The stats were linked in this thread. 2nd choice doesn't matter post primary, unless the other GOP candidates run as independent afterwords. It's a matter of "how jaded are you about Trump that you're willing to vote Hillary?" Or they could not vote at all. That is the real issue for Trump going forward. I would say that its a bigger issue for the Hillary then for Trump.
Yeah, pretty much Bernie's population is very low voter turn out. The young college student simply too fucking lazy to vote.
|
On March 03 2016 04:17 oneofthem wrote:
i mean trump not clearly denouncing the kkk is all kinds of weird. he needs to go hard for the bigots in the primaries sure, but how much of that support is denouncing the kkk really going to cost. he's full blast on the implicit stuff already.
therefore the possibility that he's a hillary mole is still open
He'll denounce them, at the right time.
|
Bisutopia19368 Posts
And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem?
Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job.
|
On March 03 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 03:59 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 03:55 Plansix wrote:
It should also be pointed out that Clinton has managed to pull in 60% of the Democrats, while Trump around 35% of Republicans. And a lot of those voters that didn’t vote for him said he was not their second choice. Many said they did not know. Trump has a lot of ground to cover to become marketable for the rest of Republicans, let alone independents. That's because there's 2 blue candidates and 5 red. Yes, I am aware. Now, for the second part where the majority of voters not voting for Trump said he was not their second choice. The stats were linked in this thread.
There is no majority second choice. The "majority" of voters not voting for some candidate say every other candidate is not their second choice. Here's what Drone helpfully linked:
+ Show Spoiler +
What you're saying applies no less to Cruz or Rubio or any other candidate. You just don't know how to interpret the data. As the pool continues to thin, Trump is not marginally hurt enough by any one person dropping out. He's too far ahead.
On March 03 2016 04:17 oneofthem wrote:
i mean trump not clearly denouncing the kkk is all kinds of weird. he needs to go hard for the bigots in the primaries sure, but how much of that support is denouncing the kkk really going to cost. he's full blast on the implicit stuff already.
therefore the possibility that he's a hillary mole is still open
Giving interviews to the KKK to try to get something to smear a candidate with is unusual, if you ask me. It's probably better for Trump that he's not entertaining the MSM on this latest attempt to paint him as scandalous. There's no way to placate the faction that berates him constantly as a racist, sexist, bigot, and so forth. What do you think would happen? He goes on with Piers Morgan or something and gets asked what he thinks about the KKK "endorsement," and says he didn't ask for it, and condemns the KKK. What do they do with the next 5 minutes? He gets asked why he thinks David Duke, which thanks to the MSM is now a name people are wasting space in their brains knowing, would come out in support of him. Gets asked more about what makes people believe he's bigoted, whether there's any truth to it, suddenly more random quotes are getting spit at him and he's being asked to "explain" himself by an interviewer that's paid to stir shit up while he's not in control. It's just bait. Trump is doing the right thing, which the left would do in any other circumstance if there weren't a chance of making controversy: ignoring fringe lunatics.
|
Clinton has been winning by ridiculous margins in red states, which will probably stay red in the general election. That's concerning because it's what largely has been propping up Hillary's campaign so far. Bernie has been tying or winning in blue states. I don't understand how people don't see this as a problem for Hillary in the general election.
Plus, more Republicans are turning out to vote than Democrats. We all know Democrats suffer when turnout is low, and I don't see that changing much in the general. If people are expecting an Obama-like surge for Hillary in the general, they are smoking some good stuff.
Barring a huge misstep from Trump (which is always a distinct possibility), this will be a lot more competitive than people think.
|
On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job.
I agree, and this idea of self-responsibility seems pretty lost on young democractic voters, especially when we start taking them on a individual case by case basis (muh art and dance majors).
That being said, the overall trend of wage stagnation is still a legitimate issue, especially considering cost of living increases.
|
What if: Cruz cuts a deal with the establishment to drop out, endorse Rubio and then campaign for Rubio in Florida? Could Rubio win Florida? Would that matter? I'm thinking Cruz could cut a deal to be VP and strengthen his 2024 presidential run.
|
On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job.
Shhh.. self-reliance is frowned upon now.
Some us would allow less taxes to your company and yourself would make your life a lot easier though.
|
On March 03 2016 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:
What if: Cruz cuts a deal with the establishment to drop out, endorse Rubio and then campaign for Rubio in Florida? Could Rubio win Florida? Would that matter? I'm thinking Cruz could cut a deal to be VP and strengthen his 2024 presidential run.
His Senate career is dead and the GOP does down with him as Trump starts a third party run and his supporters follow him. Conservatives will vilify Cruz overnight and that is what he needs to stay in front of the cameras.
|
On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job.
Its not about blame. It’s about what is best for the US as a whole. Lack of wage growth means that people take fewer risk. They don’t enter new fields. They don’t buy houses. They don’t build things. They don’t go on vacation. They don’t have kids. Less money means less stability. If people are not having kids, feel less stable and don’t buy houses, it hurts everyone. We can fix this through loans or short term plans, but some of the best times in US history were spurred on by wage growth.
When people talk about the minimum wage going up, they say it will be hard for businesses, which is true. In the short term. But long term it means there is more money flowing around in the parts of the economy that middle class people interact with, who are the largest part of the economy.
And people are way less pissed off. A rising tide raises all ships. Its not about blame, or reasonability, or merit. Its about improving the stability of the majority of Americans, rather than being worried about the bottom line of business owners for a couple of years.
On March 03 2016 04:23 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. I agree, and this idea of self-responsibility seems pretty lost on young democractic voters, especially when we start taking them on a individual case by case basis (muh art and dance majors). That being said, the overall trend of wage stagnation is still a legitimate issue, especially considering cost of living increases.
Just to be clear, there is nothing young or democrat about me. And I was raised in a family that runs a small business with 30 employees. Wage growth is a serious problem for the US.
|
On March 03 2016 04:22 strongwind wrote:
Clinton has been winning by ridiculous margins in red states, which will probably stay red in the general election. That's concerning because it's what largely has been propping up Hillary's campaign so far. Bernie has been tying or winning in blue states. I don't understand how people don't see this as a problem for Hillary in the general election.
Plus, more Republicans are turning out to vote than Democrats. We all know Democrats suffer when turnout is low, and I don't see that changing much in the general. If people are expecting an Obama-like surge for Hillary in the general, they are smoking some good stuff.
Barring a huge misstep from Trump (which is always a distinct possibility), this will be a lot more competitive than people think.
Bernie is short term. Do everything possible to just win that next state or stay relevant as long as possible. Clinton has been running a general election campaign since day 1. She could have said a bunch of crap about free school etc, but that would have been stupid. She would have set herself up for losing the general. Sanders does not have that kinda consideration. When trying to spur this silly political revolution 16 year olds like to make memes about, it's all about growth and making a mark. He has no viable way of shedding the socialism image before the general at this point. He is winning some blue states in a primary at the cost of the general election. That is, unless he spurs a political revolution that would have happened by now if it was going to.
|
On March 03 2016 04:12 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 04:04 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 03:59 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 03:55 Plansix wrote:
It should also be pointed out that Clinton has managed to pull in 60% of the Democrats, while Trump around 35% of Republicans. And a lot of those voters that didn’t vote for him said he was not their second choice. Many said they did not know. Trump has a lot of ground to cover to become marketable for the rest of Republicans, let alone independents. That's because there's 2 blue candidates and 5 red. Yes, I am aware. Now, for the second part where the majority of voters not voting for Trump said he was not their second choice. The stats were linked in this thread. 2nd choice doesn't matter post primary, unless the other GOP candidates run as independent afterwords. It's a matter of "how jaded are you about Trump that you're willing to vote Hillary?" Or they could not vote at all. That is the real issue for Trump going forward. Considering how energized the GOP is, and their overall base is in the primary, pretty sure they'll come out an vote.
No. That's a simplistic and deeply flawed outlook.
Consider Oklahoma. It was a closed primary (aka, only registered Republicans could vote), which resulted in a major Cruz victory. Trump tends to win open primaries, but amongst long-term Republicans, he's generally still considered anathema. Trump, thus far, has not yet won more than 40% of the vote in any state, in a Republican primary, despite getting his first "mainstream" endorsements.
Note also that the Republican base itself is highly fractured. While it is generally energized in this primary, increasingly more of that energy is turned towards "anyone but Trump". He's been denounced by every moderate/conservative establishment source of media, including the much vaunted National Review (the media attention has been fueling his candidacy, but I digress), and again, most moderates will either stay home or vote for Clinton if it comes down to it. Lifelong, ideological conservatives are appalled by him, and again, independents hate him.
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188177/trump-image-among-democrats-independents-negative-gop-candidate.aspx
Then consider the electoral college and how currently it moderately favors the Democrats in the battlegrounds, and you tell me how his presidency comes to fruition.
On March 03 2016 04:22 strongwind wrote:
Clinton has been winning by ridiculous margins in red states, which will probably stay red in the general election. That's concerning because it's what largely has been propping up Hillary's campaign so far. Bernie has been tying or winning in blue states. I don't understand how people don't see this as a problem for Hillary in the general election.
Plus, more Republicans are turning out to vote than Democrats. We all know Democrats suffer when turnout is low, and I don't see that changing much in the general. If people are expecting an Obama-like surge for Hillary in the general, they are smoking some good stuff.
Barring a huge misstep from Trump (which is always a distinct possibility), this will be a lot more competitive than people think.
Using your line of thinking, "blue" states hardly matters either. In reality though, it's the battlegrounds that matter, specifically Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida (North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire are of secondary importance to the above).
Clinton has already won Virginia, and has a very strong lead in both Ohio and Florida based on current polls. In Florida in particular, her popularity with Hispanic voters (or at least, their indifference to Sanders), will be critical, given that Florida in the 2016 elections is now increasingly a "must-win" state for the Republicans to have a prayer of winning the White House.
On March 03 2016 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:
What if: Cruz cuts a deal with the establishment to drop out, endorse Rubio and then campaign for Rubio in Florida? Could Rubio win Florida? Would that matter? I'm thinking Cruz could cut a deal to be VP and strengthen his 2024 presidential run.
The consolidation of the non-Trump candidates is the main obstacle for a Trump nomination. It's not guaranteed yet (March 15th and its aftermath will be essential), but he is heavily favored as a single candidate.
Kasich will not drop out until after the Ohio Primary (his home state) on the 15th, whereby he can be expected to endorse Rubio. Carson is irrelevant but still running, and will continue to do Carson things.
Cruz can and will likely stay in the race (his base and Rubio base are on opposite sides of the Republican spectrum, with Trump in the middle; if Cruz drops out and endorses Rubio, it is not entirely unlikely that a not-insignificant number will migrate to Trump instead of Rubio), and so long as he and Rubio keep Trump from winning a majority of voters, they can deny him a guaranteed nomination and bring the fight to the convention (whereby a deal can most likely be cut, though Cruz is just a hair less unpopular than Trump amongst the Republican establishment, which leads me to question where that will actually happen).
|
On March 03 2016 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:
What if: Cruz cuts a deal with the establishment to drop out, endorse Rubio and then campaign for Rubio in Florida? Could Rubio win Florida? Would that matter? I'm thinking Cruz could cut a deal to be VP and strengthen his 2024 presidential run.
Remember how often we have said that Cruz wants power for power's sake?
If he supports Rubio his support drops him like a hot potato and he is out of the senate, not happening
|
United States44170 Posts
On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job.
Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming.
Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins.
|
On March 03 2016 04:12 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 04:04 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 03:59 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 03:55 Plansix wrote:
It should also be pointed out that Clinton has managed to pull in 60% of the Democrats, while Trump around 35% of Republicans. And a lot of those voters that didn’t vote for him said he was not their second choice. Many said they did not know. Trump has a lot of ground to cover to become marketable for the rest of Republicans, let alone independents. That's because there's 2 blue candidates and 5 red. Yes, I am aware. Now, for the second part where the majority of voters not voting for Trump said he was not their second choice. The stats were linked in this thread. 2nd choice doesn't matter post primary, unless the other GOP candidates run as independent afterwords. It's a matter of "how jaded are you about Trump that you're willing to vote Hillary?" Or they could not vote at all. That is the real issue for Trump going forward. Considering how energized the GOP is, and their overall base is in the primary, pretty sure they'll come out an vote.
As Lord Tolkien said, that's not the right way of looking at the issue, considering many are energized to vote against Trump. Major Republican figures are now coming out to declare they will never vote for Trump in the general election (and some even mentioned voting for Hillary instead). While Trump supporters will certainly not care about them, several polls have shown that ~25% of Republicans heavily lean towards never supporting Trump in a general election. There is assuredly plenty of time for them to change their mind, but Trump's numbers simply do not look good at this stage for a general election.
Here's a heavily biased analysis from a Rubio supporter on redstate, who makes the same case. Take it with more than a grain of salt, obviously, but some of the numbers are interesting to look at.
|
On March 03 2016 04:22 strongwind wrote:
Clinton has been winning by ridiculous margins in red states, which will probably stay red in the general election. That's concerning because it's what largely has been propping up Hillary's campaign so far. Bernie has been tying or winning in blue states. I don't understand how people don't see this as a problem for Hillary in the general election.
Plus, more Republicans are turning out to vote than Democrats. We all know Democrats suffer when turnout is low, and I don't see that changing much in the general. If people are expecting an Obama-like surge for Hillary in the general, they are smoking some good stuff.
Barring a huge misstep from Trump (which is always a distinct possibility), this will be a lot more competitive than people think.
The misstep came when he called Hispanics a bunch of rapists and drug dealers. Alienating the largest swing voteing bloc at the start isn't going to help you.
George W bush showed the the way forward for the GOP was to court the Hispanic vote. I don't know why the GOP deided to ignore this and go off and lose every presidential race afterwords but ignoring basic demographic data like that isn't going to help anyone.
Unless hillary pulls a palin I think its not even a discussion worth having whos going to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/second_choice_among_registered_republicans_chartbuilder.png)
